|
Post by tempest on May 17, 2016 0:03:31 GMT
*****SPOILERS FOR THE ENDINGS OF PANZER DRAGOON ORTA AND ZWEI*****
This only just occurred to me, but given that Lagi gives birth at the end of PD Orta, does that mean Lagi is female? I know Lagi is really just a "rogue" program in a mutated Coolia's body but his/her biology would have to take a specific gender, unless the creatures are androginous. I know Edge and Lundi refer to the dragon as "he" but perhaps they can't tell the difference. Besides, males don't give birth. If this is true, it opens up some interesting ideas about the union of male and female through the bond between the male riders (Orta being the exception, although she was a drone like the Sky Rider) and the female dragon. And doesn't Lagi create and store a baby dragon in Shelkoof at the end of PD Zwei, which she merges with in PD Saga?
|
|
martiniii
Joined: January 2010
Posts: 2,112
Location:
|
Post by martiniii on May 22, 2016 13:26:57 GMT
because that's the wole point. the panzer dragoon saga ending is a good ending for humanity perhaps, but not for edge or for azel. that's what makes it emotional(in some ways ico ending reminds me of this very much). it's individualism suffering for collectivism, which is very japanese. That doesn't give any reason at all. Again, Azel was supposed to die in the tower, so if the writers' intention was to illustrate individualism suffering for collectivism, they would have had no reason to make her inexplicably turn up alive. Having her die with Edge would be a much more obvious and easier way of making both the thematic point and the emotional catharsis. also you come here as usual saying this is good or bad, having aced your so called philosophy courses. with your kind of attitude (I'm a teacher myself) I wouldn't have aced you in anything because you don't decide what is bad, good or even terrible. there are no rules for it even if you like to pretend they are. if 90% of the audience likes something and 10% doesn't that doesn't make either right or wrong I'm surprised that a teacher like yourself has no better defense for his opinion than an ad hominem argument.
|
|
martiniii
Joined: January 2010
Posts: 2,112
Location:
|
Post by martiniii on May 22, 2016 15:21:43 GMT
There's some interesting points to martiniii's post, thanks for responding! First off, I want to make clear I see no value in moral relativism. What I meant to get across is that understanding the intent for a law, a tradition, or a value is just as important as being taught what they are to begin with. Having the knowledge of intent allows you to reevaluate if the virtue is still valid or not. I don't want to go into a political rant, but there are quite a few laws that are being perverted or should change simply because the intent of those laws have been forgotten, were corrupt to begin with, or are simply invalid now. With that said, following your own best interests will almost always lead you to a virtuous life... as long as you're on the higher end of the bell curve. Mostly agree with this, and I do think I jumped to a partial misinterpretation of your post. It seems like I'm seeing people professing moral relativism everywhere on the net lately, so I jumped to the battlefield a little quickly. However, I'd like the add to your remarks that understanding the intent of laws and traditions is important not just for knowing when they need to change, but for knowing when they shouldn't change. Very often I hear people argue for changing something simply because they haven't considered its value and purpose and therefore assume it has none. For instance, a teacher once said in my class that the marriage institution should be done away with because the only purpose it ever had was to differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate children. Seriously. Secondly, you're going to have to explain that one to me. She was a robot programmed to do what her master(Craymen) wanted her to do. He died and she was still bound to obey his wishes. Craymen believed the towers and monsters were vital to human existence and didn't want them destroyed. Despite that Azel made a decision to destroy them. How is disobeying her programming not acting on her own volition? Are you saying Azel stayed in the crumbling towers because it was her programming to? What gives you that impression? I thought she stayed because she had to. As far as Paet and the burnt Bible goes, you can find the Bible outside the mayor's house next to where the child goes to play hide and seek. Edge narrates to himself, "Paet must've done this." That's a fair point about Edge, he's just an ignorant young man that doesn't know who to believe or what to do. I suppose lacking character isn't the right way to put it. Lets say he lacks conviction. Your framing of it as uncertain good vs certain evil is a bit overblown though. Edge just doesn't know what to do and is easily convinced. For most of the ending Edge wasn't at all convinced he should destroy the towers, but he went along with it anyway. I actually wasn't at all clear that he was the dragon. I was too busy reading the subtitles. It could get more explicit than 'That voice...... the dragon?!.' Thanks for bringing that up though! I didn't notice Edge wasn't riding the dragon either. Clearly the dragon is a part of the ultimate power or metamorphasized into it. Now that I've had some time to rewatch the ending and think about it. I wouldn't call the dragon an ultimate power the same thing. The dragon either evolves into that power or reverts back to it. Do you mean "programmed" literally? Because I never got the impression that that was the case. My understanding was always that Azel woke up as a sort of tabula rasa and that Craymen raised her as her surrogate father. That's also pretty much what her character entry in the instruction manual says. Craymen's intentions weren't as blindly simple as a desire to preserve the towers. The towers were just a tool, one of many, in realizing his dream for the world. To put his plan in crude terms, he wanted the power of the ancient towers to be kept out of the wrong hands, used to restore the world, and then destroyed. Note what he says to Edge in the tower: "That fleet, that tower, it all belongs in the Ancient Age." In destroying the towers, Azel realized the essence of Craymen's dream as best as she could. She did what her father would have wanted her to do. It's funny; I clearly remember Edge saying "Paet must've done this", but my memory of the context is fuzzy. When I get a chance I'll check if I've held onto a save file from that point in the game. Don't know what you mean by your response about Edge's character, especially the "overblown" part. Are you saying that the tower and its creatures going amok wasn't necessarily a bad thing? The dragon's metamorphosis at the end is a little strange. It's not inconsistent with anything, but I still feel they should've given more buildup and explanation, so that it would have had more meaning to the player. You're not the first to not recognize the being at the end as the dragon, but I don't understand why; it always seemed perfectly clear to me. I find it rather strange that you're trying so hard to prove my interpretation as invalid with nit picks when the ultimate power says, "I exist to lead the Divine Visitor, to break the spell of the Ancient Age, and to give humans control of their own destiny." What I said was having the player become the Divine Visitor and take the roll he did worked for the story. Not that pressing the button was proof of anti-determinism. At the end of the day we're talking about a late 90's JRPG which are built linear by design. Does the game need to be Minecraft in order to truly have an anti-deterministic message? Lets unpack this. This is an interesting design choice. Why even have the Divine Visitor be the player character? Why give that decision point to press the button at all? Which is less deterministic, giving the player a decision point, as faux as it might be, or giving no decision point at all? Perhaps the game is signalling the positive nature of power: getting people to do things without coercion. Which is in stark contrast to what Craymen and the Emperor wanted with the power of the towers and monsters. They wanted to rule with force. At the end, the player wants to continue the story and the ultimate power wants to be destroyed. So the ultimate power gives the player a method to make both things possible and commands the player to do it. Stopping the cutscene to press the button wasn't required. Edge or the Divine Visitor could've done that without the pause, but the pause was there to give the player an opportunity to decide. The decision is an easy one, but it didn't have to take place and it didn't involve coercion. As simple and as obvious as the decision was to make, it was done by the player's free will. It's kind of funny that you got the most vehement about my "push the button" comment, which I really made offhand and meant to be semi-humorous. In general my intent is not to prove your interpretation as invalid, just to talk you out of it. A vigorous proof would require me to play through the entire game again immediately (or at least watch online videos of all the cutscenes), and I don't find your interpretation objectionable to the point where I'd devote that much time and effort. I consider this more of an enjoyable discussion. 1990s JRPGs didn't have to be linear by necessity. There are multiple 1990s JRPGs where the player is given a real choice over the game world's fate, among them Phantasy Star III, Final Fantasy VI, Chrono Trigger, and Shining Force III. But more importantly, I don't agree that giving the player a false choice is less deterministic than giving them no choice. Giving the player no choice at the end says nothing, just as the lack of choice in any cutscene in any video game says nothing; giving the player a false choice acts to highlight their lack of real choice. All that said, I too believe that the developers' intent there was to give the player an illusion of choice. My main question is still, where do you see the "player kills God"? That wasn't a rhetorical question. That was the one point in your original post which confused me.
|
|
martiniii
Joined: January 2010
Posts: 2,112
Location:
|
Post by martiniii on May 22, 2016 17:40:10 GMT
It's great to hear there's another author on SS:UK. Will have to look out for your stories. What's your pen name? Believe it or not, Martin III. I've also had a few things properly published under my real name (which I hesitate to give out on online message boards), but Martin III is the only pen name I've ever used. And now I feel like I must have missed something in not knowing that you're also an author. Published anything yet? For me its extremely powerful that as the Divine Visitor, I breath new life not only into Edge, but through his quest, the world of Panzer Dragoon. That's one of the reasons I love the game so much - I get to give new life to this almost lifeless world. It creates a sense of hope. And it ties into the whole existential theme of making your own choices and creating your own life. Azel's survival also gives players hope. While we can't know the author's intention for sure without asking them, for me, Azel's survival and beginning quest is about giving the player a sense of hope at what otherwise would be quite a depressing ending. I can understand why it might be interpreted as an allusion to a future story but I don't believe this was the author's intention. For me, it was simply a statement that life goes on and that every ending creates a new journey, again, tying back to the existential theme. And, as an author, I'm sure you know that people will interpret a story in many different ways no matter the author's intention. All that matters is that we are emotionally affected and engaged with the material and I can tell from your response, that you were touched or fully engaged in the story, even if your interpretation differs from mine (which makes for interesting discussions like this). The player doesn't breathe life into Edge, though. The game doesn't have any interactivity until after he supposedly becomes the player's zombie. Your description in general evokes thoughts of games like Fluidity or SimAnt, not Panzer Dragoon Saga. This comes back to one of the reasons why breaking the fourth wall in dramatic fiction is considered a big no-no. When experiencing a story, the reader/viewer/player is supposed to perform a willing suspension of disbelief. This is what allows them to be involved in the story and recognize the truths expressed in it (one of my favorite quotes is "Good fiction is life with the boring parts taken out."). A good writer doesn't try to deceive his audience. He knows that his audience realizes that elves don't exist, the year is not 3400 A.D. or 1200 A.D., and the president of the USA has not been replaced by a clone, and he strives to make his characters behave in a realistic way within his often unrealistic premises. A good writer creates fiction, but he never lies. By breaking the fourth wall, you remind your readers that what they are experiencing is fiction, and thus destroy that vital suspension of disbelief. PDS's ending is a particularly odious example of breaking the fourth wall, because it tells you that you, the player, are the Divine Vistor and have been controlling Edge's actions. It doesn't ask you to suspend disbelief; it expects you to actually believe this obvious falsehood. Because if you don't actually believe it, then it becomes nothing more than a cheap gimmick. (Contrast to the usage of breaking the fourth wall in the TV series Moonlighting, where the fourth wall jokes are funny only if the viewers are aware that they are not in fact involved in the events of the show.) The "Edge was dead all along" theory extends this lie further, saying that the writers expect you to believe that you personally are responsible for Edge doing anything in the game more than slowly turn an ugly shade of purple. That's not involving you in the story; that's simply lying to you. Azel's ending only offers hope if Edge is alive. By the "Edge was dead all along" theory, Edge is dead, and essentially so is Azel. Once again, Azel was supposed to die in the tower, so the only way she can really be alive is if there's an intended sequel which would explain her being alive. Here's an example. In Shining Force (Genesis), Max dies at the end, only to appear inexplicably alive in a post-credits sequence, just like Azel. He returns in the later game Shining Force Gaiden: Final Conflict (Game Gear). Now, whenever the ending of SF1 is discussed in Shining fandom, there's at least one person who says, "I think Max really did die, and what we saw at the end is just his ghost." And the only way to refute this idea is by pointing to Max's subsequent appearance in Final Conflict. Same thing with PDS. So long as we assume there was an intended sequel, it makes sense to say that Azel somehow survived the destruction of the tower. But if there is no sequel, then it might well simply be her ghost, and even if she is alive, she's alive simply by authorial contrivance. Kind of like if "Death of a Salesman" ended with Willy Loman showing up at his funeral and saying, "Hey boys, I'm alive after all!" There's no hope in that. Hope has to be based on something believable. Beyond all that, the simple lack of unambiguous evidence for the "Edge was dead all along" theory makes it impossible to credit it as the writers' intent rather than a fan theory. Panzer Dragoon Saga's story indeed deeply moved me emotionally. I'm still proud of the review of the game I wrote a couple years ago, and I think I'll quote a relevant passage here rather than again trying to re-express what makes the game so emotionally effective:
|
|
|
Post by Sonnington on May 24, 2016 5:10:29 GMT
It's not exactly clear, she was either directly programmed by Craymen or programmed to follow the commands of whoever awoken her. There was no time allotted in the story for Craymen to take on a surrogate father position.
I'm not saying they were good or bad. I'm saying Edge didn't know to either follow Craymen or follow Gash. He didn't know what the right thing to do was.
Let me put it more simply, there may have been better ways the designers could have conveyed the message through gameplay elements, but that doesn't mean the message wasn't there. Considering the context of the story, I find it absurd to suggest the button segment had the intent to show anti-determinism.
I did a pretty thorough job explaining how the ultimate power was God in my last post.
|
|
martiniii
Joined: January 2010
Posts: 2,112
Location:
|
Post by martiniii on May 27, 2016 13:25:25 GMT
Aw, not much more activity in this thread. Though I suppose I may be partly to blame due to my infrequent posting (my job has been keeping me insanely busy). I'll have to try to come up with my own discussion point on Panzer Dragoon Saga's story. There was no time allotted in the story for Craymen to take on a surrogate father position. If Azel were a normal human child, yes, but Azel is not a normal human child. When she was awoken her memories were on the level of a newborn, but her ability to comprehend was on the level of an adult. She could assimilate quite a lot from Craymen in just a few days, and the game gives us reason to believe that she did. Her conversation with Edge near the end of disc two and her reaction to Craymen's death are both heavily suggestive. Ever read For Whom the Bell Tolls? Think of the romance between Robert and Maria, and imagine that same sort of accelerated relationship occurring on the father/daughter plane. That's what went on between Craymen and Azel. I'm not saying they were good or bad. I'm saying Edge didn't know to either follow Craymen or follow Gash. He didn't know what the right thing to do was. I'm still not clear on why you think it's "overblown" to say that Edge knew he had to destroy the towers to protect humanity. Considering the context of the story, I find it absurd to suggest the button segment had the intent to show anti-determinism. So do I. I think you overlooked a couple parts of my last post. I did a pretty thorough job explaining how the ultimate power was God in my last post. Yes, but where's the killing part?
|
|
|
Post by Sonnington on May 27, 2016 23:12:00 GMT
Interesting interpretation of Azel. I'm pretty sure I saw the word 'program' in there somewhere, but I may be mistaken.
You said his choice was between good and evil. What I'm saying was he didn't know which choice was good and evil.
OK, I take it you now agree with my interpretation now, but you feel the developers could've done a better job? I'm confused because originally you said this:
The part at the end where the Ultimate Power tells the Divine Visitor (player character) to destroy him by pressing the button...
|
|
|
Post by bultje112 on Jun 1, 2016 20:57:52 GMT
because that's the wole point. the panzer dragoon saga ending is a good ending for humanity perhaps, but not for edge or for azel. that's what makes it emotional(in some ways ico ending reminds me of this very much). it's individualism suffering for collectivism, which is very japanese. That doesn't give any reason at all. Again, Azel was supposed to die in the tower, so if the writers' intention was to illustrate individualism suffering for collectivism, they would have had no reason to make her inexplicably turn up alive. Having her die with Edge would be a much more obvious and easier way of making both the thematic point and the emotional catharsis. also you come here as usual saying this is good or bad, having aced your so called philosophy courses. with your kind of attitude (I'm a teacher myself) I wouldn't have aced you in anything because you don't decide what is bad, good or even terrible. there are no rules for it even if you like to pretend they are. if 90% of the audience likes something and 10% doesn't that doesn't make either right or wrong I'm surprised that a teacher like yourself has no better defense for his opinion than an ad hominem argument. of course it wouldn't, because with both people (in love) dieing it would make for a much more peaceful ending. instead azel survived because she wanted to stay with edge not realizing edge was dead all along and his spirit and body were now gone and not needed anymore. this makes it all the more painful for azel and her survival seems extra bitter and emotional. a much better ending than having them both die. only the heresy dragon is given the choice to live on as a mortal or die. also sestren seems clear on who is the divine visitor. it's the "human"(?) entity, not the dragon, as the seekers seem to think and also edge. even the dragon confirms this in his conversation with edge. it is the ultimate way of having humanity take control over their own destiny as was originally intended by the "heretic" "impure"(as sestren calls it) heresy program, which sestren is afraid of. in the end the heresy program has to be destroyed as well and edge's body with it. interesting remains who and how was the heresy program started and by who? did some of the ancients program it out of sympathy with humans? who where the ancients anyway? could they have just been humans who had acquired god-like powers?
|
|
|
Post by atolm on Jun 1, 2016 22:12:10 GMT
You guys are reading way too much into the divine vistor thing. It was simply the producers' attempt to try and absorb the player into the story. I don't see the press a button thing at the end as all "neverending story", and overall I don't feel the divine visitor aspect has any real bearing on the story. It wasn't a big secret reveal, after all right at the beginning you are presented with "the one who controls Edge, what is your name" you then see the orb descend and revive him. Edge isn't exactly a silent protaganist, and his emotions at the death of his captain and revenge are his alone, not the player's. That pissed off sneer he gave Zastava took place before the player gets involved.
I also don't see any real good vs evil struggle in the game either. It's simply humans dealing with a way to survive in a harsh world, by their own methods the empire just happens to seem more dickish. Right vs wrong is up to interpretation. There's a great scene where Gash says to Edge something along the lines of "at least I'm not out to murder anyone".
The ancients were humans, this isn't some big secret who they were. As far as the origin of the heresy program, I honestly don't remember if it was mentioned in the story but the easiest explanation is it was introduced as sabotage by some ancients who didn't like the way things were going. The same way Craymen broke away from the empire.
|
|
|
Post by bultje112 on Jun 2, 2016 6:38:34 GMT
what 100% proof do you have the ancients where human? I also believe that, but people like the seekers do believe they were gods.
I do agree with you about the divine visitor but he does come back in other games. for instance the divine visitor was part of the skyrider that we see in the opening of the first panzer dragoon game and was confirmed several years ago by a team andromeda member that it wasn't (an evolved) lundi.
I do agree with you that I think the heresy program was started by some ancients who where against the way the world was heading towards.
|
|
|
Post by atolm on Jun 2, 2016 13:50:20 GMT
what 100% proof do you have the ancients where human? I also believe that, but people like the seekers do believe they were gods. lol, have you actually played through the game? out of all the mysteries in the game, who the ancients were isn't one of them. There's some dialogue between Azel and Edge while they are cruising around the genetics lab underneath Uru where Azel tells him verbatim that the monsters were created by humans. The ancients were an advanced human civilization who met their demise, they weren't space aliens or some other weird convoluted plot idea. The narrator even tells you within the opening minutes of the first cutscene. "Thousands of years have passed since the fall of the utopian civilization. The survivors live in fear of the biological weapons created by ancient technologies" The panzer universe is basically Mad Max, but with dragons instead of rusting Holdens and other detroit iron. There isn't any Assassin's Creed celestial beings nonsense going on.
|
|
martiniii
Joined: January 2010
Posts: 2,112
Location:
|
Post by martiniii on Jun 10, 2016 23:52:26 GMT
You said his choice was between good and evil. What I'm saying was he didn't know which choice was good and evil. No, I said "uncertain good against certain evil". The point being that the tower and its creatures going amok was clearly evil. When one option points to an evil outcome with 100% certainty, and there is only one alternative option, then the alternative is clearly right, regardless of the uncertainty of its outcome. We don't often get choices that are so clear-cut in real life; in most cases, all the available choices have uncertain outcomes. OK, I take it you now agree with my interpretation now, but you feel the developers could've done a better job? I'm confused because originally you said this: Like I said, that comment was half food for thought, half humor. It wasn't at all meant as a genuine argument. The part at the end where the Ultimate Power tells the Divine Visitor (player character) to destroy him by pressing the button... He says to press the button "For a new beginning". That could mean just about anything.
|
|
martiniii
Joined: January 2010
Posts: 2,112
Location:
|
Post by martiniii on Jun 11, 2016 0:08:37 GMT
of course it wouldn't, because with both people (in love) dieing it would make for a much more peaceful ending. instead azel survived because she wanted to stay with edge not realizing edge was dead all along and his spirit and body were now gone and not needed anymore. this makes it all the more painful for azel and her survival seems extra bitter and emotional. a much better ending than having them both die. I dare say this is the first time I've heard anyone claim that having both the heroes die cannot qualify as a tragedy. I could certainly argue the point, but there's a simpler rebuttal: Tragedy has to be based on something more than authorial contrivance. If Edge is dead and Azel is alive purely by contrivance, it only invites the player to ask, "Well, if you decided to make Azel be alive, why not just make Edge be alive too?" An intrinsic part of good tragedy is that it comes across as an inevitable result of who the characters are, not something that is simply imposed on the characters by a malicious author.
|
|
martiniii
Joined: January 2010
Posts: 2,112
Location:
|
Post by martiniii on Jun 11, 2016 0:20:20 GMT
You guys are reading way too much into the divine vistor thing. It was simply the producers' attempt to try and absorb the player into the story. I don't see the press a button thing at the end as all "neverending story", and overall I don't feel the divine visitor aspect has any real bearing on the story. It wasn't a big secret reveal, after all right at the beginning you are presented with "the one who controls Edge, what is your name" you then see the orb descend and revive him. Edge isn't exactly a silent protaganist, and his emotions at the death of his captain and revenge are his alone, not the player's. That pissed off sneer he gave Zastava took place before the player gets involved. Very well said. I also like that you reference "The Neverending Story"; I'd been considering bringing it up as an example of a work which puts forth the idea of the reader/player/viewer controlling the story without making the mistake of breaking the fourth wall. I also don't see any real good vs evil struggle in the game either. It's simply humans dealing with a way to survive in a harsh world, by their own methods the empire just happens to seem more dickish. Right vs wrong is up to interpretation. There's a great scene where Gash says to Edge something along the lines of "at least I'm not out to murder anyone". Right vs. wrong is always involved. It's like your lungs taking in oxygen and pushing out carbon dioxide; you can ignore it, or even deny that it's happening, but that doesn't stop it from being there. Certainly Edge, Azel, Craymen, and Gash wouldn't have acted as they did if they weren't concerned with right vs. wrong.
|
|
|
Post by atolm on Jun 11, 2016 1:44:20 GMT
I'm not using "good vs evil" and "right vs wrong" interchangeably. I didn't say there was no right vs wrong, I said it was open to interpretation. There is no traditional good vs evil in this story, this isn't Zelda or countless other games where a seemingly peaceful utopia is suddenly threatened by a demon set on ruining everyone's day. I think this is partly why PDS is such a unique experience.
Was it right for Craymen to nuke the capital and slaughter the excavation team? As he later tells Edge, "this is war". Would it really have been a terrible thing if the Empire had taken over Zoah? A town that was waging class oppression through religious dogma (just eavesdrop on the many conversations in town). It's conceivable the empire would have done away with the Holy District ensuring more even commerce. Was it really "wrong" of the Empire to destroy Zoah? It could be argued it was an appropriate response. Edge helped Vaiman by firing the first shots in the conflict. You as the player completely obliterate a military installation presumably filled with men proudly serving their nation with families at home. Even the Seekers aren't the completely noble organization they claim to be, they later imprison Orta for the crime of her birth. No one has a 100% moral high ground in this game.
That's why the Caravan is so brilliant in it's inclusion. You can see the effects the events have on a group of people who otherwise have no agenda other than to eke out a living and survive.
|
|